Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
MP's - Pay rise
- Thread starter CREATIVE!11
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
See, this is the sort of thing thats really quite irritating. You've managed to form a very strong opinion whilst clearly having absolutely no idea what being an MP even is. Is it really too much to ask that you find out before making that opinion?
An MP doesnt 'decide to take a job somewhere else'. They take a job in the constituency they are elected to represent - for example in your example, Cornwall. Part of this job requires that they spend almost half the year in London, and half the year in Cornwall. Thats the job. The job is split between a base in Cornwall where you live, and London.
This is why they are entitled to expenses including travel, subsistence and rent allowance for a place in London.
This is EXACTLY what you would get as well if you lived in Cornwall, worked in Cornwall and your employer said 'You need to spend 5 months a year at our client site in London'.
Your employer would pay for your travel to London. They'd pay you an allowance for meals away from home. They'd pay for your accomodation.
It's exactly the same thing!
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
but then the gov should own the house, not the MP in the end.
if we are paying then it should be a house that is passed onto another MP when they retire. not a state funded 2nd home then can sell off later on.
[TW]Fox;24321190 said:They are rental properties
Typical throwback to the scandal times - people are still assuming that MPs get their second mortgages paid for. I just wish people would do a little research before coming out all guns blazing only to shoot themselves in the foot (to mix my metaphors).
That said, this presumes that there are safeguards in place to ensure that an MP doesn't set up an LLC to purchase the property and then pay rent to the LLC (effectively themselves).
Living here on my employers wishes. Much like an MP's employers (the people) needing him to represent them in Parliament and in their local constituancy...
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
They're only allowed to rent properties, not spend it on mortgages
oh
, how then were they claiming mortgages on expenses then? or was this the flipping thing? i know some were claiming mortgages as IIRC at least 2 were claiming mortgages for houses that had been paid off. 'oh, sorry, i forgot i owned the house i was charging you for'oh
Are you talking about before the reform?
Your words not mine.
An opinion and not intended to convince.
oh
Under the old rules they were permitted to claim for mortgage expenses. Current rules only permit claiming for rental expenses.
Take Camoron with a pinch of salt. No money my backside, 2015 can't come quick enough, I absolutely despise this odious dare I call him Man
How is this even related to the topic?
You effectively insulted someone for holding a view which you disagreed with. Why not raise an argument as to why you're right, rather than posting a dogmatic opinion?
If you're going to post dogmatism, you'll get dogmatism back.
Take Camoron with a pinch of salt. No money my backside, 2015 can't come quick enough, I absolutely despise this odious dare I call him Man
What? I err... Who? What are you talking about?
You decided it was an insult and reacted to it.
Hence why we get one MP paying rent to another, or MPs renting off personal friends and relatives.
It's very hard to stop that sort of thing though - it happens when people employed in regular jobs are posted away, too. Plus if the friend wasn't renting to an MP he'd be able to rent on the private market anyway so does it really make a whole lot of a difference?
